Posted on 10/04/2005 8:27:16 AM PDT by Fun Bob
And he also believes it is the right of the gov't to kill people who will not pay for this "right".
How about cable TV? Is that also a basic human right?
So this means if you don't want to access the internet you're a racist?
You mean it isn't???
My God, we are in worse shape than I thought!
"Let them eat Wireless..."
In SanFran ????????
There is no sex change operation. Just cosmetic surgery to change the appearance of some or all sex traits.
DNA doesn't change.
Mentally confused individuals can no more change their sex than they can change their race.
Instead of the SF network being called the "Information Highway",
perhaps the SF freaks will call it the "Hershey Highway".
"fundamental right of all citizens"
I'm sure that's hidden in one of the "penumbras" of the constitution somewhere.
I read the other day that Google is getting ready to provide free wireless access (including telephony)to the SF area.
...with some poor schmuck paying for it."
actually, imagine how safe the city will be, you can take your assailants picture with yer digi cam, upload it to your laptop, upload it to the LEO database, and they can issue an APB within minutes. unfortunately, you'll probably already be dead before the cops even start looking, but you can rest easy in your grave that the cops already know whodunit.
but waqit! doesn't he know the lessers prefer WB?
"...with some poor schmuck paying for it."
- Yeah...the people of San Fran. Sombody's got to pay for the mayors utopia wi-fi dream. When polaticians say words like "free" and "basic human rights" what they mean is that they want the "free basic right" to charge higher taxes.
Well, thank God Al Gore invented the internet and created this inalienable right, heretofore unknown.
I visited San Francisco once........ once.
I spent a week there one afternoon.
Could you please give me sources on this? I believe you but I have been looking for sources proving this to be the case for a while now.
I visited San Francisco once........ once.
I spent a week there one afternoon.
I'll see what I can do. I just know that it is something that I have read numerous times.
Yes me too but I have nothing to back it up with so I have been looking for a document that would help.
THE POLICE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON FROM HARM
This section serves to illuminate the existence of bad Police policy, anti-rights legislation, a domestic threat, and poor judicial remedy. The following true story is unacceptable, intolerable, and must be prevented from re-occurring ...
"Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, (1975) 46 Cal.App. 3d 6. The year after winning the Hartzler case, the San Jose government appointed Joseph McNamara Police Chief. Chief McNamara has since become the leading police spokesman for Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)." Excerpt from "The Law Abiding Individual and Personal Protection", by John Brophy. (Forward and emphasis added)
This is an appropriate time to point out that Chief Joe McNamara had a firm policy not to issue permits to Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) to non-law enforcement officers, with exception shown through a permit he allegedly issued to his daughter. Chief McNamara is also alleged to have kept an automatic submachine gun in the trunk of his vehicle. Apparently he felt he needed it, but not anyone else. Does anyone else smell the characteristic stench of hypocrisy?
Mr. Brophy proceeds to provide substantial case-study to show similar judgments in other jurisdictions throughout the United States:
Bowers v. DeVito, (1982) 686 F.2d 616. (No federal constitutional requirements that police provide protection.)
Calgorides v. Mobile, (1985) 475 So.2d 560.
Davidson v. Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rep. 252.
Stone v. State, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 924, 165 Cal.Rep. 339.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, (1983) 468 A.2d 1306.
Warren v. District of Columbia, (1983) 444 A.2d 1.
Sapp v. Tallahassee, (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert. denied 354 So.2d 985.
Keane v. Chicago, (1968) 98 ILL.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321.
Jamison v. Chicago, (1977) 48 ILL.App.3d 567.
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871.
Silver v. Minneapolis, (1969) 170 N.W.2d 206.
Wuetrich v. Delia, (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929.
Chapman v. Philadelphia, (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753.
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937.
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority, (1982) 55 N.Y. 2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196, 197 (1989).
constitution ccw right to keep and bear arms self protection gun protect self defense car dog sex ufo drug
"The law is abundantly clear. Police have no duty to protect an individual from harm ... Each person is responsible for their own safety and protection from criminal harm, and for the safety and protection of their dependents." - John Brophy
But doesn't just about every Law Enforcement Agency's "Mission Statement" include the words "... to serve and protect ...." ? So then protect what? Obviously it isn't the people . . .
So then whose responsibility is it to protect you? It is your responsibility to protect yourself.
And how are you supposed to do that? You're allowed (in all non-socialist jurisdictions) to possess a firearm in your domain (residence) and your place of business. So what about out in public where most assaults occur? How are you supposed to lawfully protect yourself against the criminal element who ignores the laws against carrying (arms) to begin with?
http://thevop.com/protection.html#Police
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.